Foreknowledge

[rbcbob]

We can prove his premises inconsistent with Scripture, but they not themselves illogical.

The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.

As in:

1. All who trust in a false gospel are lost
2. All Arminians are trusting in a false gospel
3. All Arminians are lost

This logical argument is consistent and its conclusion is valid. However its conclusion is false. The point of breakdown is in the second premise. Not all Arminians are trusting in a false gospel. Remember, Arminians hold to numerous self-conflicting propositions.

 

[Confessor]

Praise God for blessed inconsistency!

 

[Whitefield]

The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.

So how does this bleak assessment help to answer the question of the OP?

Jim, I appreciate you and your interaction. I want to assure you that none of us believe Pinnock is correct.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My favorite Pinnock quote:

“Your work has gotten me interested in knowing more about the 'Mormon/evangelical dialogue,' how to measure it and even how to bridge it. Are we (in your opinion) co-belligerents as it were in the struggle against pagan influences in classical theism? Can we benefit each other? My sense is that we are closer to each other than process theists are to either of us. . . . Clearly we have much in common. I have always hoped with respect to your faith that Mormon thinking might draw closer to Christian thinking (or ours to yours) and not drift farther away.”

I'm just sayin'. Sigh

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 03:25:01 EST-----

I was recently discussing foreknowledge with an Arminian friend, I agree with the historical reformed Calvinistic view. He sent me this site.
Whats everyone's take on this, though I am sure it comes as no surprise.

It seems Arminians have a library of resources to counteract reformed theology. How in the world do you show someone the truth, good grief, most will not even consider it.

Foreknowledge Defined | Society of Evangelical Arminians

The usual misunderstanding proceeds along these lines:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

Freedom of course defined as the choosing of one's most desired inclinations at the moment of one's choosing: the liberty of spontaneity versus the Arminian's liberty of indifference (libertarian free will).

AMR

 

[pm]

graciously matured us

. . .
I think we all were arminians ourselves at one point before God graciously matured us, so we can't boast about being better.

Yes! We so often forget that "God graciously matured us!"

Which means:
1) We need to be kind and gentle with others as God is maturing them and
2) We will alway need more maturing for ourselves.

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 06:43:07 EST-----

The faith that God's foresees is the faith He himself creates.

God foreknows who will believe, because it is He who generates the faith to believe. - from John Murray

 

[Pergamum]

Anyone have a word study of foreknowledge and fore-know that they could post. Or articles examining the meaning of foreknowledge. I have a friend looking for such a rsource.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Arminians have no better response to the pointlessness of grief than that they are confident God can overrule man's designs because he is wiser and more powerful. And yet they believe that God will stop at some point. He will not move beyond point-X to change a situation, even to respond to a prayer. Not if it will "violate" that precious free-will of some man.

Ironic that many Arminians (all?) will say that man has no "free-will-choice" to stay or leave heaven. More consistent Arminians will say that man can (and many do) lose their salvation in this life. But in the state of glory and ideal conditions, man has "less" free will than now? Or shall they affirm that there could be another massive rebellion in heaven? Why not?--it happened once before. How do they square the impossibility of falling with perfect free-will?

At some point, everyone must impose rational limits on "free-will." Whose will, God's or man's, is ultimate? How and when are the choices available restricted? How can we make sense of the world--that was, that is, and that will be? Calvinism doesn't need to redefine "freedom" under every new paradigm.


Rather than seeing us as "puppets" (a very poor analogy, and intended to insult), let us rejoice (even when the Arminian does not) in the fact that God has "written our script" in the drama that he wrote, before time began.

We have no sense whatever of reading that script. All our actions flow with freedom and self-intention from our wills. Which makes us responsible moral actors.

This is the difference between the way in which God can determine things as God, and our puny efforts at creating drama. WE would have to put a marionette on strings. WE would have to give a man a script, and he would have to memorize it, and perhaps he would even improvise when he acted it out, thus limiting our directorial authority.

God, however, suffers not a word of improvisation, or directorial laxity. Nor did he achieve some "semblance" of sovereign direction by watching what we would do in the future, and then "writing the script." And yet, we actors have no sense of script or direction. We behave entirely as though the entire drama were an "Improv", and ourselves the incomparably skilled actors.

Only God has the power to so organize and arrange, script and direct. This is ultimate Sovereignty--to be able to exercise infinitesimal sovereign predestination, indeed to "write the script" down to the hairs that fall from each scalp, and to do so in the most "natural" of ways. To succeed in ordaining even the free acts of men. To have all things fall out according to the nature of second causes: either necessarily, freely, or contingently (WCF 5.2).

This is how great God is. The world is NOT ultimately our "improvisation." And we should be GLAD (!) that it is not. Not one "tragedy" is meaningless in GOD's drama. Not one tear falls that God must react to offer a solution, if he can find it, if men will only take it.

 

[wmc1982]

Here's Pink's chapter from the "Attributes of God"

4. The Foreknowledge of God

 

[Brian Withnell]

Heh . . .

But is error ever logical?

Error can be logically consistent.

We don't think so . . .at some point the truth will break down the erroneous argument.

Thus the teaching and admonition of Ephesians 6:11-18.

Forgive my thick headedness, but if one starts with axioms that do not match the Bible, then one will not find faith ... but that does not mean that one will be logically inconsistent. Logic does not require correctness, or even usefulness. Logic is simply a set of rules that are followed in order to draw conclusions from a set of undefined terms, axioms, and defined terms. If you follow the rules of logic within the system of axioms with which you start, you are being logical. Of course you won't live that way if the axioms are contrary to the word of God.

 

[cih1355]

The word "foreknowledge" in 1 Peter 1:2 does not simply mean "knowing what will happen in the future." God is simply looking down the corridors of time and seeing what will happen in the future. The word "foreknowledge" has to do with a predetermined relationship or with a predetermined choice. It is like going up to a woman and saying, "You are going to be my wife."

1 Peter 1:20 says that Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world. When God foreknew Christ, this does not simply mean that God knows what Jesus will do in the future. It has to do with His intimacy and affection for His Son.

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 01:06:52 EST-----

There is no hope at all philosophically for those who wish to retain free will and omniscience. If God knows that S will do X in the future, then it is true that S will do X in the future, by the definition of knowledge. And if it presently true that S will do X, then S is incapable of changing that truth and therefore is "forced" to do X. Pinnock figured this out and unfortunately apostatized. Anyway, the best arguments I've heard that reconcile omniscience with free will are the following:

(1) Just as a friend can know what we will do in a situation without impinging on our freedom, so God can know. But this fails because the friend's knowledge is not infallible; i.e. the friend cannot truly know what you will do. And if he did know infallibly, then it would be the case that you did not do so freely.

(2) God is outside time, and therefore to speak of God's knowing "future" events is nonsense. But this fails because God clearly has an understanding of time, as shown pervasively throughout the Bible with His covenantal interacting with His people. Or, in other words, that God is outside time does not mean that God cannot comprehend time.

Of course, the easiest way to disprove Arminianism is with Scripture. If only it were as easy to break through people's hearts; hence, prayer is paramount.

For those who wish to retain free will and omniscience, the term "free will" has to be redefined to mean "act according to one's desires." It is impossible to do something that is contrary to what God knows you will do in the future.
You can only do what God knows you will do in the future. There cannot be freedom in the libertarian sense.

 

[rbcbob]

Anyone have a word study of foreknowledge and fore-know that they could post. Or articles examining the meaning of foreknowledge. I have a friend looking for such a rsource.

Louw-Nida Lexicon
proginw,skw ; pro,gnwsij, ewj f ; proora,w: to know about something prior to some temporal reference point, for example, to know about an event before it happens - 'to know beforehand, to know already, to have foreknowledge.' proginw,skw: proginw,skonte,j me a;nwqen, eva.n qe,lwsi marturei/n 'they have already known me beforehand, if they are willing to testify' Ac 26.5; proegnwsme,nou me.n pro. katabolh/j ko,smou 'known already before the world was made' 1 Pe 1.20. It is also possible to understand proginw,skw in 1 Pe 1.20 as meaning 'chosen beforehand' (see 30.100). pro,gnwsij: tou/ton th|/ w`risme,nh| boulh|/ kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou/ e;kdoton 'God, in his own will and foreknowledge, had already decided that this one would be handed over to (you)' Ac 2.23. proora,w: proi?dw.n evla,lhsen peri. th/j avnasta,sewj tou/ Cristou/ 'knowing ahead of time, he spoke about the resurrection of the Christ' Ac 2.31.
In its simplest definition means prior_knowing
Context and sound theology will answer the question of the basis for this prior knowing.

 

[Brian Withnell]

One of the things that I think is difficult to comprehend ... and is absolutely true ... is that God sovereignly ordained not only what man does, but that man freely chooses what God has ordained.

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." I think is overlooked, or just not understood. God's decrees are always good, right and perfect. Our actions are always at best tainted by sin. That is why it is so critical that we are saved not by anything we do or believe in ourselves, but that we rest 100% on the finished work of Christ. Even if we were responsible for faith, we would have sin tainting our faith. That is what I think is missing in Arminian doctrine and thinking. There is semi-pelegian thought, that did not rear its ugly head until after the great schism, and so by God's providence could not have been dealt with ecumenically. This boarders close to the edge though. I fear for my Arminian brothers. The doctrine is fraught with self-reliance and self-ability. While those that are my brothers are secure in the faithfulness and ability of Christ my God to deliver them from the jaws of hell itself, that deliverance does not give them growth in Grace and Truth in the midst of this age.

 

[Whitefield]

For those studying the words "know" and "foreknow" in the Greek, it would beneficial for you to also study the Hebrew word-grouping around yd'.

 

[Peairtach]

I just had a rather lively discussion with a good friend of mine who is an Arminian, and the point that he kept coming back to is the idea that if God chooses everything, that makes us puppets. I did my very best to show him that this is not the case. What was maddening is that he accepts the sovereignty of God and even the concept that there may be elect, but he says that such knowledge is not practical, and we would be better off if we focused on man's choices.

All we, as Reformed individuals, can do is put forth the biblical truth and pray. I think we all were arminians ourselves at one point before God graciously matured us, so we can't boast about being better.

If God did not sustain the free agency of our souls by His sovereignty we would be puppets, our thoughts, words and actions the determined products of nature and nurture.

I believe that all truly born-again Christians are presupposiitionally Calvinists. Some of them don't want to admit it.

 

[Confessor]

For those who wish to retain free will and omniscience, the term "free will" has to be redefined to mean "act according to one's desires." It is impossible to do something that is contrary to what God knows you will do in the future.
You can only do what God knows you will do in the future. There cannot be freedom in the libertarian sense.

Yeah, I agree. I always use "free will" to mean libertarian freedom, because that is how people generally understand it. I would agree that we have free will in the compatibilist sense, but I never use "free will" to denote compatibilism simply because it could be misleading to others who think of it only in the libertarian sense.

-----Added 6/23/2009 at 02:23:25 EST-----

I just had a rather lively discussion with a good friend of mine who is an Arminian, and the point that he kept coming back to is the idea that if God chooses everything, that makes us puppets. I did my very best to show him that this is not the case. What was maddening is that he accepts the sovereignty of God and even the concept that there may be elect, but he says that such knowledge is not practical, and we would be better off if we focused on man's choices.

All we, as Reformed individuals, can do is put forth the biblical truth and pray. I think we all were arminians ourselves at one point before God graciously matured us, so we can't boast about being better.

If God did not sustain the free agency of our souls by His sovereignty we would be puppets, our thoughts, words and actions the determined products of nature and nurture.

I believe that all truly born-again Christians are presupposiitionally Calvinists. Some of them don't want to admit it.

For sure. Why else would they pray for others' salvation? And why else would they talk about people that God brought into their life?

 

[Dennis1963]

Here is a recent post. Thought you may be interested. I see many holes in his argument, correct me if I am wrong but, Calvinists believe man can make choices, choices depending on their desires of course. For a guy who was educated in Calvinism, I think he may have missed a few classes.

From your Pink link: "God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be." I'm familiar that according to Calvinist thought God knows nothing that he didn't first decree and that all things that exist or happen were first decreed. Well aware of Calvinist thought on this subject, I chided Calvinist thought by pointing out an inconsistency three weeks ago, writing:

In Calvinist thought nothing can come to pass that hasn't first been predestinated and nobody can do anything that hasn't first been predestinated. Yet Calvinists say they freely choose their fate.

Wait: that's a word game ain't it? The language of fate suggests things can only be the way they can and that there are no alternative endings. The language of fate is fatalism. But the language of choice suggests that there is a choice. However there are never any choices in Calvinism because nothing comes to pass except what God first predestinates. The language of choice simply means that the person is in agreement with their fate. In other words, any language of freedom or choice from the boundaries set by Calvinist theology is nothing more than an attempt to blunt fatalism and soften its blow.

As such, Calvinists say they freely choose their fate.

Yet I maintain that Calvinist thought's use of the language of choice and freedom is nothing more than lingual sleight of hand. A neat trick but a trick after all.

I further pressed the difference in definition between not-Calvinism and Calvinist thought, bluntly stating:

In not-Calvinism (all other Christians) God's knowledge is precisely knowledge of what other wills are doing but God's will isn't the cause of what those other wills are doing.

In Calvinism it is effectively thought that God knows the future because he speaks the future into existence. Nothing that comes to be or comes to pass can exist without God first willing it.

In not-Calvinism God providentially sets up systems and sets boundaries within those systems which his creatures and natural mechanisms are able to freely operate. The amount of freedom each thing experiences is according to its order. Clearly a rock doesn't experience freedom in relationship to human freedom however the atoms that make up a rock experience far more freedom than one can imagine when one considers quantum pairing and principles of uncertainty. All freedoms experienced are always in some type of relationship to God's own freedom since not-Calvinism holds God as the absolute standard of what is free rather than hypothetical but never actualized freedoms.

I then illustrated the difference between not-Calvinist concepts of God's knowing with the Calvinist concept, writing:

This idea is best illustrated by folding all time and space into a mathematical point and labeling that point God's perspective. Things rattle around in creation and time and God bears witness.

Contrast the folding of time and space with the Calvinist concept that the edge of the future comes into existence only because God continually wills the created order's event horizon to be manifested.

Why did I go through all of this trouble? Because Calvinists rarely read anything out side of their own paradigm and are often, quite literally, unaware of how all other Christians have historically understood that God foreknows simply as a function of his being and not because he first acted by decree. Worse, young Calvinists often press their unique ideas onto the the rest of the Christian body under the assumption that their innovative view is the only view of how God knows and unaware that it is the Calvinists and not the non-Calvinists that need to prove their case to the historical memory of the body of Christ.

I thank you for the Pink link. I was unaware that he was online. For what it's worth, my formal Calvinist education tended to follow the Scottish rationalism of the Princeton Theologians.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sounds like an "open theist" to me. God, the Great Reactor. The Great Observer.

Did God create, then look, and then say, "I can fix that!"

Does our pain and pleasure have an eternal purpose?
Or a finite purpose, because God can "bring good out of it"?
He's just like us, only bigger and stronger?

I guess it kind-of makes me angry (how foolish of me) to see some prater carrying on about how "all other Christians" have understood reality, as if that were a reliable truth-test. How stupidly reductionistic.

Even if it were so (which is practically impossible--ideas have too much interpenetration), it would be just another version of "majority-rules" and "might-makes-right." Is that really what he thinks determines truth?

 

[Confessor]

First, tell him that his objection is anticipated by Paul in Romans 9:19.

Second, ask him if he knows anything about compatibilism. It would make sense that he thinks Calvinists are playing words games if he knows of no freedom apart from libertarianism.

Third, present him the typical argument that refutes free will: if God knows his final destination now, then whatever his final destination is (heaven or hell) is already set in place now. In fact, it was set in place from before he was born. Ask him how he has any choice in such a framework.